Re: it is possible to link more than one object type to a label type

Sure, why not? You probably want to ensure that the same WebsiteDesignElement name doesn't get used for more than one of the related types though, using a mandatory exclusion (X-OR) constraint. But is it possible that what you really mean is that these are subtypes (all kinds of WebsiteDesignElement)? That will use a subtype connector, and will still need the XOR constraint.

P.S. why does WebsiteDesignElements have a plural name? You'd normally only use a plural name when a single instance designates a plurality of things, which doesn't seem to be what you mean here.

Re: it is possible to link more than one object type to a label type

Many thank for your feedback..
Concerning the WebsiteDesignElements this is part of a large conceptual schema. And this is really what I mean: a single instance designates a plurality of things.
I am just wondering is the value type (information) is correct represented. Beouse I linke it with several object type. I am asking this because I remember form the ORM1 that in this situation I need to change the (information) form value to entity object type.
So in conclusion, it is possible to link the value object type (information) to several entity type as appears!? Kindly, is that correct?!
Kind regards,
Abed

Re: it is possible to link more than one object type to a label type

Many things are possible, but not all are meaningful. The question you should ask is "what is meaningful". In my language, "Colors with Information" doesn't look like a meaningful fact type. "ColorSet includes Color", "Color is represented by RGBValue", etc, look like more meaningful things to say.

You should almost never use a plural name. If WebsiteDesignElements is intended to collect a group of disparate Elements (for example as a Theme), name it WebSiteElementCollection or WebSiteTheme, and also consider using a supertype WebSiteElement for the kinds of Element.

Also the way you have it implies that the same instance of "Information" can meaningfully be linked to more than one of the other types, and I'm quite sure that's wrong (unless "Information" is a free-form comment or something, but eve then...)

It looks like part of an attribute-oriented metaschema, and seems quite unlike a fact-based schema might look.

Your identification patterns seem to be created to hide meaning also. What is a "C"? A "GS"? An "I"? These things should have meaningful names. The fact that you haven't used meaningful names make me wonder whether you've yet decided what they mean. You certainly don't seem to intend someone else to know what they mean. Start again, using the exact sentences you'd use to describe your problem domain to a smart newcomer. From those fact examples, extract the verbalisations you use for each fact type, and turn those into a model.